The written allegation that begins the juvenile justice court process is a document that explains the facts and circumstances of the alleged law violation and provides identifying information regarding the youth and witnesses. The document is usually completed by law enforcement. Jurisdictions call this initial written allegation by many names (e.g., police report, affidavit, probable cause statement, complaint, case summary.

Either at the same time, or at another step in the process, a second document is completed that states in formal legal language the name and number of the specific state statute that the youth is alleged to have violated. This second document is also called by different names in different jurisdictions. The JUVENILE JUSTICE GUIDELINES uses the term “petition” to refer to this second document.

In some juvenile justice courts, the person completing the affidavit also files the petition at the same time, and both documents begin the juvenile justice court process. In other courts, the affidavit is filed with the juvenile justice court and then forwarded to the prosecutor or handled by juvenile justice court intake to make the decisions of legal sufficiency and formal or informal processing. If the prosecutor or juvenile justice court intake decides to pursue formal action, the prosecutor or juvenile justice court intake prepares and files the petition to accompany the affidavit. In some jurisdictions, the affidavit is not considered a filed document and does not become part of the court file.

There are three possible circumstances when an affidavit is filed with the juvenile justice court:

1. An affidavit may be filed without the police arresting the youth. In this circumstance, the police believe that community safety will not be adversely affected if the youth remains in the community until appearing before the juvenile justice court.
2. The second circumstance is when the police arrest the youth and bring the youth to detention intake when they file the affidavit. This should occur only when the police believe that the community will be adversely affected if the youth remains in the community until appearing before the juvenile justice court. However, in an increasing number of jurisdictions, law enforcement must request permission to detain the youth. In this circumstance, detention intake would conduct a detention risk screening that would determine whether the youth’s offense and history indicated a level of risk that would require detention.
3. The third circumstance is when the police have been unable to locate the youth and believe that the community will be adversely affected if the youth remains in the community until appearing before the juvenile justice court. The police file the affidavit with a request for the issuance of a warrant or writ for the youth’s arrest. In this situation, once the arrest warrant is issued, the juvenile justice court does not become further engaged until the youth is arrested and brought to the juvenile justice court.

The juvenile justice court process subsequent to law enforcement bringing a youth to the juvenile justice court detention intake to be detained on a served warrant parallels the process that occurs when a youth is arrested at the time the affidavit is filed.

Three of the most important decisions made in a juvenile justice case occur at the outset of the process. Those decisions are:

1. Are the allegations legally sufficient to move the case forward, or are the allegations insufficient for the case to proceed?
2. If the allegations are legally sufficient, will the case be diverted or handled in the formal juvenile justice court system?
3. If the case will be handled formally, will the youth be detained or released until the first hearing; and if detained, is secure detention required?

As discussed in Screening and Assessment under Case Management, decisions such as these, if not totally statutorily driven, should be made using validated screening tools that are designed to assess risk to reoffend as well as capture information available on possible needs. The screening tool will vary depending upon the specific issues to be addressed and what information is available at the point of screening. When juvenile justice systems use validated tools, they enhance objectivity and decrease individual subjectivity, resulting in greater consistency and fairness.

The first of the three decisions made at the outset of the process, determining whether the allegation is legally sufficient, is statutorily driven. For the most part, the second decision of whether to proceed formally or divert to informal resources is not statutorily driven except in the most serious felony cases involving prosecutorial waiver and direct file in criminal court. Therefore, the decision of whether to proceed formally or to divert should be made using a validated screening tool, specifically designed to assist with determining which cases may be appropriate to divert, and to ensure diversion decisions are made using consistent factors. The third decision is statutorily driven by state law, which usually allows juvenile justice court intake to detain a youth only if the youth is a danger to self or others, will probably reoffend, or may abscond. However, implementing this statutory standard justly, consistently, rationally, and efficiently requires the use of a validated screening tool designed to assist in identifying risk of reoffending or absconding, as well as identifying possible needs of the youth.

These decisions are too important to be left to guesswork. They should be determined by written criteria that are aligned with the law and the goals and key principles of the juvenile justice court. The criteria should give structure and consistency to decision-making, without eliminating discretion. Whether the juvenile justice court or the facility is operated by another entity, system stakeholders should collaborate to set the criteria. For the juvenile justice system to operate optimally, the community, law enforcement, social service agencies, and other system participants should understand when youth are and are not likely to be detained.